Home› A Moving Train

Sarah Palin is a whiney baby

blondieblue227blondieblue227 Va, USA Posts: 4,509
edited January 2009 in A Moving Train
There I just felt like saying it.
I feel like if she had known her shit the media wouldn’t have jumped on her so bad. She made herself an easy target.
*~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*

Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • pateljampateljam Posts: 340
    Whiney Baby doesn't even began to explain her... I don't know what is worse Palin or the people who hold her up as a hero and role model

    And for the record I think people who hold Obama in the same, are sheep too...
    2000-10-28 San Bernardino
    2003-06-02 Irvine
    2003-10-26 Mountain View-Bridge School
    2006-07-09 Los Angeles
    2006-07-10 Los Angeles
    2006-10-22 Mountain View- Bridge School
    2008-07-19 UCLA-Who Rock Honors
    2009-10-1 Los Angeles-2
    2009-10-9 San Diego
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    I felt the media ripped into her very unfairly. I do not remember a candidate having their personal family life so dragged through the mud in a long time.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    know1 wrote:
    I felt the media ripped into her very unfairly. I do not remember a candidate having their personal family life so dragged through the mud in a long time.
    ...
    My guess... if you are going to stand on a pedestal and rave about 'Family Values' and 'Good Parenting' and 'Christian Moral Values' that we should have (like we some how don't have)... and raise an unmarried, pregnant teen aged son or daughter... then, you need to be prepared to take on some return fire.
    ...
    Oh... and thinking you some how get foriegn policy experience because you can see part of another country from your shoreline doesn't help, either.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • kenny olavkenny olav Posts: 3,319
    I still think John McCain picked her because he wanted to lose. That's not a theory, just a gut feeling. OK, maybe it's a hypothesis.
  • YieldInHidingYieldInHiding Posts: 1,841
    know1 wrote:
    I felt the media ripped into her very unfairly. I do not remember a candidate having their personal family life so dragged through the mud in a long time.

    Bill Clinton maybe?
    No longer overwhelmed it seems so simple now.
  • JR8805JR8805 Posts: 169
    It seems to me that she wants to be held to different standards than others running for national office. What did she think she was running for--queen of the local harvest fair? On the other hand--it's true that nothing wasn't done to her that wasn't done to other women running for president/vice president--I think that a level of sexism did permeate the campaign in a way that was considered untouchable for racism. Both she and Hillary were evaluated on the basis of looks in a way none of the males running were. Yes, Edwards had his haircut flap, but the criticism wasn't that the hair was or wasn't becoming or that barbering was tied to being unmanly, but rather ran into class issues and perceived hypocrisy. With Hillary, I got to hear a constant stream about how old she was, how dried up she was, how thick her ankles were, what crone she was, etc., in a way I never heard lobbed against McCain. Because she was a female, the ageism became magnified by sexism. With Palin, she was denigrated by referrals to her great legs and her general "hotness" and how "doable" she was. These women were treated as less then the men they were running against by having a great deal focused not on on what their stands were on policy, but what they were literally standing on...ooh...she has shiny, sexy shoes on. The other is has matronly, sexless shoes on. Racists didn't dare go up against Obama blatantly in any kind of non-stop or spiraling manner. I can't say that was bad. But, I can't say that what I saw Palin and Clinton subjected to openly was very comforting. Look good, baby, or we might not take you seriously because we can write you off. But, look good, baby, and we won't take you seriously because we can objectify you. Keep the focus on the little lady's looks, and she won't be able to measure up against the boys. It's a worthy goal in the gender wars, so far helping to heavily slant outcomes.
  • LizardLizard So Cal Posts: 12,091
    Cosmo wrote:
    know1 wrote:
    I felt the media ripped into her very unfairly. I do not remember a candidate having their personal family life so dragged through the mud in a long time.
    ...
    My guess... if you are going to stand on a pedestal and rave about 'Family Values' and 'Good Parenting' and 'Christian Moral Values' that we should have (like we some how don't have)... and raise an unmarried, pregnant teen aged son or daughter... then, you need to be prepared to take on some return fire.
    ...
    Oh... and thinking you some how get foriegn policy experience because you can see part of another country from your shoreline doesn't help, either.

    Totally agree with that.
    So I'll just lie down and wait for the dream
    Where I'm not ugly and you're lookin' at me
  • RiverrunnerRiverrunner Posts: 2,419
    JR8805 wrote:
    It seems to me that she wants to be held to different standards than others running for national office. What did she think she was running for--queen of the local harvest fair? On the other hand--it's true that nothing wasn't done to her that wasn't done to other women running for president/vice president--I think that a level of sexism did permeate the campaign in a way that was considered untouchable for racism. Both she and Hillary were evaluated on the basis of looks in a way none of the males running were. Yes, Edwards had his haircut flap, but the criticism wasn't that the hair was or wasn't becoming or that barbering was tied to being unmanly, but rather ran into class issues and perceived hypocrisy. With Hillary, I got to hear a constant stream about how old she was, how dried up she was, how thick her ankles were, what crone she was, etc., in a way I never heard lobbed against McCain. Because she was a female, the ageism became magnified by sexism. With Palin, she was denigrated by referrals to her great legs and her general "hotness" and how "doable" she was. These women were treated as less then the men they were running against by having a great deal focused not on on what their stands were on policy, but what they were literally standing on...ooh...she has shiny, sexy shoes on. The other is has matronly, sexless shoes on. Racists didn't dare go up against Obama blatantly in any kind of non-stop or spiraling manner. I can't say that was bad. But, I can't say that what I saw Palin and Clinton subjected to openly was very comforting. Look good, baby, or we might not take you seriously because we can write you off. But, look good, baby, and we won't take you seriously because we can objectify you. Keep the focus on the little lady's looks, and she won't be able to measure up against the boys. It's a worthy goal in the gender wars, so far helping to heavily slant outcomes.

    I have to say up front that I despise Sarah Palin. But I totally agree with your commentary on the sexism during the nomination process and the presidential race. It was really disheartening to me.
    The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals. Ghandi
  • VINNY GOOMBAVINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,818
    Seriously, did she think it was going to be all butterflies and rainbows when she was going to be interviewed by ultra-liberals like Katie Couric (who clearly did her homework on how to stump Sarah)? Shouldn't she have at least crammed for the exam a little bit before these interviews? Her answers were very revealing in that she had little to reveal. She and McCain would have been a lot better off if she was honest about her lack of experience. Her claiming that she had any "foreign policy experience" was a joke in so many ways... If she wants a part in big-time politics, she has to learn to tapdance around questions a lot better than she did in all of her interviews-- OR, have an actual answer for them. Even terrible answers fly in that business if you keep your composure during answering. She never kept composure. Her family should have probably been left out of things, if you could count on the media having any ethics at all, and they don't.

    If she's smart, she runs for Senate the first chance she gets... She should sit out the 2012 election, and run in 2016 if we don't nuke ourselves to pieces by then. It is safe to say that Obama will get a second chance in 2012 no matter how good or bad a job he does in his first term. I mean, we gave W. a second chance, and the Republicans won't be able to produce anyone good anyway.
Sign In or Register to comment.